And should be treated as such.
If she was the one who was responsible for bringing a weapon into her home, for whatever purpose (and she might have had a justifiable purpose), then using reasoning, she should bear responsibility for the choices she made on how that weapon is stored and used.
Too many times the social "we" excuse avoidable tragedies based on poor choices because we don't want to end up taking responsibility for our own poor choices that end up in the death of someone who didn't have a chance to avoid it.
I have compassion, I make an effort to understand why a person would make choices - why someone might be miserable enough to self-medicate to excess to kill a secret pain or the symbolic "things" and activities people seek, thinking those things or activities will fix a vulnerability or quell a fear that they are feeling. The things we do to feel better about ourselves and our positions in society, or to feel more in control of our chaotic lives.
People used to excuse drunk drivers all the time for the poor choice they made to drink and drive, while they killed innocent individuals or families (In some places, they still do - if the driver is wealthy enough). Prior to the big push by MADD, the social decision not to punish the drunk driver was inevitably based on the attitude of "well, I sometimes drive a bit tipsy, and while I may have hit the mailbox or a garbage can once or twice coming up my driveway, I've never hit a person or another car - nor has anyone else in my family".
Usually that argument came from people who occasionally went out to drink and might not have been totally sober coming back home. There was self-denial sort of justification that drinking to impairment and then getting behind the wheel was a common occurrence that could happen to anyone but a teetotaler, and it was just bad luck or God's will ... that a older couple coming home from an anniversary dinner and a hard-working guy coming home from a night out with the boys in his big ol' pick-up just happened to fatally intersect on a rare chance that would never happen to them.
I can't tell you how many times that came up as a justification when those who were for status quo in law enforcement or government tried to shut down even thinking of punishing drunk driving with more than a nuisance misdemeanor or accidental manslaughter.
Again, I feel sorry for the mother who left an unsecured firearm and her of-age pair of kids who were obviously not trained in firearm safety alone to make a living. I feel sorry for the 9 year old brother who shot his sister while handling a dangerous weapon that he obviously had only a cursory idea of what it was capable of doing based of what - TV and video games? I feel sorry for the loss of potential that was a young girl.
But I also feel rage that it happens way too many times, devastating too many families - and it seems that people who seem to have a vested interest in keeping the status quo because they may be afraid of being held responsible if a similar situation happened to them with their unsecured weaponry, because they chose not to go through the extra hassle to get a gun safe, or sit down with their kids right off and go through a rigorous gun safety course as a family.
This shooting could have been avoided depending on choices. Two out of three in particular if one chooses to have a firearm at a home where there are children around. These choices are -
1) The choice to have a firearm in the house.
2) The choice to keep the firearm in a secured state, where children can't get to it or can't fire it if they did get to it.
3) The choice to ensure all children that are in the house know guns were not toys, and were not to be touched unless a responsible adult gives them permission.
After making the first choice, choice #2 or #3 pretty much ensures that choice #1 does not end up in an accidental fatality.
And, unless one of the children has a mental or emotional incapacity, choice #3 only costs the firearm owner time, effort, and attention...
Between common sense, news, and hell, the NRA/2nd Amendment cult propaganda machine; there is no reason why anyone in modern society doesn't understand these are the three fairly simple choices are critical to keep children at a home where there's a firearm from accidentally hurting themselves with a firearm.
But apparently, more and more people don't seem to want to take responsibility for the risks they present to others. So unfortunately for people who seem to be in too much in a hurry to think through the ramifications of their choice of actions, like with all other "your right to swing ends where my nose begins" type of situations, there's become legal consequences to allowing situational risks to escalate into a serious injury or fatality - to make people stop and think, before they react.
Haele
= new reply since forum marked as read
